It appears that you're running an Ad-Blocker. This site is monetized by Advertising and by ">User Donations; we ask that if you find this site helpful that you whitelist us in your Ad-Blocker, or make a ">Donation to help aid in operating costs.

Here's a light propelled vehicle test launch in an open-shutter snapshot. The light is focused into a laser which causes air to explode - each ring of light you see is an explosion which further launched the vehicle upward.

You can learn about all kinds of experimental and theoretical technologies being developed at:

Jitendra, you just did the forbidden "SilentRage is wrong" type of remark. I did not lie to you. Quote:

"Once the lightcraft is spinning at an optimal speed, the laser is turned on, blasting the lightcraft into the air. The 10-kilowatt laser pulses at a rate of 25-28 times per second. By pulsing, the laser continues to push the craft upward. The light beam is focused by the parabolic mirror on the bottom of the lightcraft, which heats the air to between 18,000 and 54,000 degrees Fahrenheit (9,982 and 29,982 degrees Celsius) -- that's several times hotter than the surface of the sun. When you heat air to these high temperatures, it is converted to a plasma state -- this plasma then explodes to propel the craft upward."

But anyway people, that is far from the coolest thing that site discusses. It also describes how matter/antimatter engines will work (just like in the old Star Trek) and how teleportation will work (again, just like in Star Trek) and how DNA computers will work. It's not just fantasy stuff either, they've actually done some of everything above.

a little more about laser travel and such... they had an experiment in a facility i forget which, berckly maybe... anyway they tested the speed of light thought a substance called aerogel, made kinda like glass with supperheated sandgrains, well anywa its light as a feather and tey got it so that when light passes thought it it goes faster than light.... kinda weird screws up einstien special realitivity theory, oh well last time i tryed to get back to the site from my bibliography(was an english report) it wasnt there

As i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i carry a big stick because i am the badest mother****er in the valley

they got it so that when light passes thought it it goes faster than light

This makes no sense, light passes through it and propels it faster than light? No. Until I see hard proof, nothing can go faster than the speed of light--not a damn thing. Numerous tests have shown this to be true. How it affects time is particularly interesting, if you wish I'll embelish, but otherwise just look it up, veyr neat.

And aerogel? All I can find is that it's being used to catch particles of a comet's tail.

"There is no end. There is no beginning. There is only the infinite passion of life." --Fellini

Yes. Aerogel was developed by NASA. It's 99.6% (I think) air and the rest is silicone or something. It's in some weird state that's not quite solid, and not quite gas. It can withstand extreme temperatures and has other weird properties. As for going faster than light, everything I've heard about breaking the speed of light barrier ahs been disproven. Except one. Here .

I don't see how that news article disproves that the speed of light can't be broken. The fastest they've made any particle move is subatomic particles accelerated in megnetic field driven tubes. These particles spin around faster and faster until it is just a fraction away from the speed of light - but goes no faster.

Also, as for time... I don't believe that you can go back in time when you break the speed of light. The closest thing to looking into the past you can get, is by looking up into the sky at the stars. You are looking at those star's past. If you can go faster than the speed of light, you can outrun it and stop and look behind to watch it catch up - a glimpse into the past. For instance, if some alien out there had a fricken powerful telescope and was able to see straight through the clouds on earth - he'd be watching events that happened years and years and years - goodness how many years into our past.

---

In case any of you guys found it and read it. HowStuffWorks.com has a lot of information about teleportation that news articles does not go into - it's worth a read.

Also, if you find this kind of thing interesting, quantum computers is also well discussed on that site. Here's the core of it - classical computers run instructions linearly - as in, 1 by 1 after another as fast as it can go. The data is represented as 1's and 0's. In quantum computers, these instructions are executed at the same time. This is possible by the new mode that data travels and that the data is now represented in 1's and 0's and a mixed state that is both 0 and 1. With such a unique data representation, a chunk of information may hold more than 1 piece of data. While before you transmit first 1 number than another number to the processor to be added, all you have to do is transmit the 1 piece of information containing both numbers and have them added. This increases speed and efficiency.

Why do you say that? What's so good about DNA computers? Quantum computers are obviously faster and have more potential right? And evolutionary programs can be made on quantum computers just like classical ones...I haven't really looked into DNA computers so I don't know that much about them. Why do you say they kick [censored]?

Dude think about it. Just how much information is stored in one tiny cell of our body? The entire genetic makeup that makes us - us. Our entire body can be rebuilt with the information in any one of our cells.

And that demonstrates just how much we can store with DNA.

Notice the chemical reactions that take place in our brain and transmit various information. Just imagine how much input our brain recieves at every given moment about our surroundings and internal working processes. It's damn fast. And they say our brain is only using a small fraction of it's potential. DNA computers can harness some of that. Read the article before debating what I say - like jtendra should've.

Heh, the lock-picking and pick-pocketing articles were interesting (I was tired, they were simple).

And I wasn't talking about time travel, but rather how it seems to slow down the faster you go. Ever read any science fiction books were people go in space-ships traveling near lightspeed and com back years later having aged very little? If we could actually go that fast, it'd be possible.

They tested this once by syncronyzing two clocks and puttting one of them on a jet that flew around for several hours. When it landed the clocks were compared -- the jet one was behind several seconds.

I believe they're planning on testing this on the space-station sometime soon.

"There is no end. There is no beginning. There is only the infinite passion of life." --Fellini

heh, of course I'm right. Also keep in mind that this is a ground based laser. In order for the ship to fly, a laser must be shot from the ground into the air against the underside of the ship. It is the mirrors on the bottom of the ship that takes this laser light and focuses it to heat the air into a plasma and explosive state.

It also spins really fast to keep it going straight gyroscopically. That means it is only capable of vertical travel and only in the atmosphere - not space.

However, there is also a microwave based travel which actually DRAWS the ship TO its destination. That means the space station can have some kind of microwave transmitter that will draw these microwave vehicles from the surface of the planet up to the space station. If you're too lazy to go read it and are curious about a little more details as to how it works (like I explained with the laser based vehicles) then I'll do so. Why? Cause I forgot, and I'll be interested in reading it again if somebody cares.

Dude think about it. Just how much information is stored in one tiny cell of our body? The entire genetic makeup that makes us - us. Our entire body can be rebuilt with the information in any one of our cells.

And that demonstrates just how much we can store with DNA.

I think quantum computers may actually be able to store way more information, eventually. If they really can access parallel universes then they could potentially have amazing computing AND storage capabilities.

Quote:

And they say our brain is only using a small fraction of it's potential. DNA computers can harness some of that. Read the article before debating what I say - like jtendra should've.

Actually that's a myth. We do use our brains, it's just that it is used by our subconscious. Our conscious minds are only able to use a small amount of the resources available, but that's because our subconscious needs it to do a lot of things that you don't think about. Like walking, reading and any other complex task you don't have to think about. It also has to sort through all that information that is provided by your senses and decides what to bring to your conscious attention. Also we're talking about DNA, I don't think it would work quite like that anyway.And, DNA computing requires human intervention so it's quite slow. Everything has to be set up. Of course we'll probably find a way to get around that eventually. But by the time we do, we may have progressed far enough with quantum computing that it will leave DNA computing in the dust! I think quantum computers kick all kinds of [censored]!

( I can tell that you read the material, so I had to refresh my own memory)

DNA Computing Facts:

1) More than 10 trillion DNA molecules can fit into an area no larger than 1 cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches). With this small amount of DNA, a computer would be able to hold 10 terabytes of data

2) DNA computers perform calculations parallel to other calculations. It is parallel computing that allows DNA to solve complex mathematical problems in hours, rather than years to complete them.

Quantum Computing Facts

1) A 30-qubit quantum computer would equal the processing power of a conventional computer that could run at 10 teraflops (trillions of floating-point operations per second).

Well, that's all the facts I could find performance-wise. Things are still too undeveloped I guess to get a good contrast between the two computing types. You said that DNS computers required human assistance - this was true for the first method by that Aldrich or whatever his name is - but not true for logic gates and biochips. The article described this system as PC-like. So your argument there is untrue. You also said "access parallel universes". No, I think you misunderstood. They do not access parallel universes. Such talk speaks of multiple dimensions which has never been proven.

And about our brains... It is debateable as to how much potential our brains do not use, but one thing most everybody agrees on is that our brain is NOT using it's full potential. Some people use more of it's potential than others - this is why a system called IQ is developed. Some people are geniuses (which simply means they learn very very quickly and can take what they learn and deduct things most other people never think of), some people are not.

If everybody used 100% of the potential of their brain - we'd all be frickin geniuses. And IMHO psychics. I believe that a brain working under it's full potential can do something with those brain waves scientists have monitored - perhaps, read other people's thoughts in an intuitive way - not necessarily in words.

1) More than 10 trillion DNA molecules can fit into an area no larger than 1 cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches). With this small amount of DNA, a computer would be able to hold 10 terabytes of data

2) DNA computers perform calculations parallel to other calculations. It is parallel computing that allows DNA to solve complex mathematical problems in hours, rather than years to complete them.

Quantum Computing Facts

1) A 30-qubit quantum computer would equal the processing power of a conventional computer that could run at 10 teraflops (trillions of floating-point operations per second).

Well, that's all the facts I could find performance-wise. Things are still too undeveloped I guess to get a good contrast between the two computing types. You said that DNS computers required human assistance - this was true for the first method by that Aldrich or whatever his name is - but not true for logic gates and biochips. The article described this system as PC-like. So your argument there is untrue.

Well, sorta. It said that right on the site in bold letters. Let's make a compromise of sorts...Quantum DNA computers! That would kick all kinds of [censored]!

Quote:

You also said "access parallel universes". No, I think you misunderstood. They do not access parallel universes. Such talk speaks of multiple dimensions which has never been proven.

No, I think you misunderstood. It is not said they use other dimensions, it is said they use parallel universes. I have read about it. The parallel universes idea is the driving theory behind quantum computing. Also, a lot of physics is still technically theoretical and hasn't been completely proven yet. But if it works, go with it. (Until you run into a wall ).

Quote:

And about our brains... It is debateable as to how much potential our brains do not use, but one thing most everybody agrees on is that our brain is NOT using it's full potential. Some people use more of it's potential than others - this is why a system called IQ is developed.[quote]Hold on there. IQ is VERY contraversial. There's a huge IQ debate going on that is still unresolved. There isn't even a widely accepted definition of intelligence really. And IQ is just a number. It is a one dimensional thing that's supposed to sum up your intellect. The thing is, it doesn't say anything about any particular aspect of your intelligence. YOu can be stupid in one area, smart in another and end up having the same IQ as someone of average intelligence in every way.[quote]Some people are geniuses (which simply means they learn very very quickly and can take what they learn and deduct things most other people never think of), some people are not.

Even that is still being debated. Genius has a few definitions going around.

Quote:

If everybody used 100% of the potential of their brain - we'd all be frickin geniuses.

Well, I would tend to agree with you, but then we'd have to redifine the term "genius" then wouldn't we?

Quote:

...And IMHO psychics. I believe that a brain working under it's full potential can do something with those brain waves scientists have monitored - perhaps, read other people's thoughts in an intuitive way - not necessarily in words.

You wouldn't have to be psychic to do that. You just have to learn to read people. There are savants who can do that. I agree we don't use all of our brains potential. That is definitely true. I just wanted to dispel the common myth that we only use an estimated 10% of our brains. Bull. Consciously maybe.

I wonder how much more we could get out of our brains with enhancements...

bah, I grow tired of debating with you. haha. There's an element of truth in all you said (or a possibility of truth) - but I still adamently believe we are NOT using the full potential of our brains. I've NEVER heard ANYBODY say otherwise.

"Well, sorta. It said that right on the site in bold letters. Let's make a compromise of sorts...Quantum DNA computers! That would kick all kinds of [censored]!"

The bold letters were refering to the first attempt at DNA computing. Please keep things in context. They offered it as a problem with the first experiement which was solved in a later different theoretical implementation of DNA.

heh, but I see that you are throwing in the word "compromise" with humor mixed in. That's also a sign of growing tired of debating. Let's go find somebody else to pick on? I'm a bully damnit, and my victims usually shut up with just 1 or 2 argumentative posts - I don't like to see my victims fight back. Especially not in the analytical and thorough way that you do it. It's like I'm arguing with myself - NOT FUN!!!

Originally posted by SilentRage:The bold letters were refering to the first attempt at DNA computing. Please keep things in context. They offered it as a problem with the first experiement which was solved in a later different theoretical implementation of DNA.

Oh. Well, I pretty much just skimmed the article.

Quote:

Let's go find somebody else to pick on? I'm a bully damnit, and my victims usually shut up with just 1 or 2 argumentative posts - I don't like to see my victims fight back. Especially not in the analytical and thorough way that you do it. It's like I'm arguing with myself - NOT FUN!!!